Go. I'd argue that Neuilly was the only one approaching fair, and even that inexplicably gave chunks of land to Yugoslavia.

EDIT: Dammit, screwed up the poll. It was meant to be a "Check all that apply" poll.

Yeah, I have 2 that's fair and 1 that's mostly fair. Trianon was the worst. It butchered Hungary completely, and left large overwhelmingly Hungarian areas outside Hungary. The rest where not completely unreasonable, considered they did loose a major war.

Sèvres wasn't fair, as it dismembered Turkey. Saint-Germain-en-Laye wasn't fair, as it dismembered Austria. Trianon wasn't fair, as it dismembered Hungary. Versailles wasn't entirely fair but it didn't dismember the target nation (of course, it debatably caused WWII). Really the only decent one out of the bunch was Neuilly-sur-Seine.

Go. I'd argue that Neuilly was the only one approaching fair, and even that inexplicably gave chunks of land to Yugoslavia.

Not inexplicably. It would be as if Israel and Syria signed a peace treaty that left the Golan Heights in Israeli hands. The territory that was ceded to The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was high ground that was militarily useful.

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

Sèvres wasn't fair, as it dismembered Turkey. Saint-Germain-en-Laye wasn't fair, as it dismembered Austria. Trianon wasn't fair, as it dismembered Hungary. Versailles wasn't entirely fair but it didn't dismember the target nation (of course, it debatably caused WWII). Really the only decent one out of the bunch was Neuilly-sur-Seine.

Germany's territorial losses in Versailles aren't too bad, but the crushing war indemnity payments and the War Guilt Clause make it a lot worse than the border adjustments look on paper.

Austria wasn't dismembered by the treaty, it had dismembered itself already due to lack of any popular support or redeeming value. If anything, Austria (modern definition of) was artificially created by that treaty - the point being prevention of reunification of the German-speaking rump with Germany. There is the obvious issue of the German speaking parts of Bohemia, I suppose.

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

Austria wasn't dismembered by the treaty, it had dismembered itself already due to lack of any popular support or redeeming value. If anything, Austria (modern definition of) was artificially created by that treaty - the point being prevention of reunification of the German-speaking rump with Germany. There is the obvious issue of the German speaking parts of Bohemia, I suppose.

Actually Austria got Burgernland from Hungary, so they also gained territory. The treaty shouldn't have given Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia and Southern Tirol to Italy, but the vast majority of the German speaking areas in the Hapsburg monarchy remained in the new Austrian state.Especially the incorporation of Sudetenland in a Slavic state was unfair and foolish. It was fairly obvious that it would lead to trouble. As a minimum the area should have had a high level of autonomy.Austria should also have been allowed to join Germany.

Unfair, but not as brutal as Trianon. Not more unfair, than could be expected after the loss of a major war. But none the less: Stupid.I actually think stupid vs. sensible is a more relevant criteria than fairness, when it comes to Peace Treaties.

Actually Austria got Burgernland from Hungary, so they also gained territory.

True, but, you know, not all that relevant in the big scheme of things. (Unless you're a Burgenländer, I suppose. 'Burgenland' is also a made-up word with a, cough, interesting pedigree.)

Quote

Austria should also have been allowed to join Germany.

Of course, it's not clear that they would have been happy there - a union in 1918 (opposed for obvious realpolitik reasons by the victors) might well have led to a divorce soon enough just as the 1938 union did. But, basically, yes.

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

Actually Austria got Burgernland from Hungary, so they also gained territory.

True, but, you know, not all that relevant in the big scheme of things. (Unless you're a Burgenländer, I suppose. 'Burgenland' is also a made-up word with a, cough, interesting pedigree.)

Quote

Austria should also have been allowed to join Germany.

Of course, it's not clear that they would have been happy there - a union in 1918 (opposed for obvious realpolitik reasons by the victors) might well have led to a divorce soon enough just as the 1938 union did. But, basically, yes.

The issue presented here by the OP was fairness. Not realpolitik. So, no need to state the obvious.

Anyway, Sudetenand is the core in any evaluation of the fairness of this treaty.